California Governor Edmund Brown Jr. recently signed a new law into effect designed to protect the privacy of social media users. Governor Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 1844 and Senate Bill 1349. These new laws will prevent universities and employers from requiring that applicants give up e-mail or social media account passwords.

Over the last year, there has been a significant increase in the number of job applicants and college students being forced to surrender passwords to social network sites such as Facebook and others to be considered for acceptance to the college or to be offered a job. Privacy advocates argue that this is a clear violation of privacy.

Governor Brown said, "The Golden State is pioneering the social media revolution, and these laws will protect all Californians from unwarranted invasions of their personal social media accounts."

Assembly Bill 1844 prohibits employers from demanding usernames, passwords, or any other information related to social media accounts from employees and any other job applicants. The bill also bans employers from firing or disciplining employees who refused to divulge this information. The law does not provide protections for passwords or other information used to access employer-issued electronic devices.

Senate Bill 1349 adds a similar privacy policy for post-secondary education students for social media. The bill stipulates the public and private institutions can't require students, prospective students, and student groups to disclose usernames, passwords, or other private information for social media. Senate Bill 1349 passed without opposition in the legislature.

Supporters of Assembly Bill 1844 said that it is a common sense measure needed to clarify questionable business practices.

People often simply are not in a position to refuse a job because they don't like the company's hiring process. Even if said applicant refuses the request and moves on, it's almost certain that someone else will come in and gladly consent in order to land the job because they *NEED* the job.

This notion you have in your head that anyone can land a job anywhere at any time and are never in a position where they feel they have to compromise rights they normally wouldn't for a paycheck is simply false. This law merely removes the employer's ability to ask the question in the first place (or gives legal recourse if they still do). There are already law enforcement agencies in place to handle any cases that pop up, and it's a big stretch to say there are going to be enough cases of employers violating the law that these agencies are going to have to grow substantially just to handle them.

Besides, this issue is already impacting the legal system. The difference now is (at least in California), it's clear and unambiguous that asking for social network/email passwords is illegal, rather than having to debate the Constitution.

quote: almost certain that someone else will come in and gladly consent

And why/how does that affect you?

quote: This notion you have in your head that anyone can land a job anywhere at any time

I'm not claiming it's equivalent to buying a loaf of bread. To be sure, it may required substantial amounts of additional effort. What I'm arguing is that it's no different than any other attribute of that job. You take into account pay, benefits, distance to commute, work environment, type of work, responsibilities, potential for advancement, etc etc etc when making employment decisions. And at the end of the day, you make the judgement call on whether the value you receive for your time/effort is worth it. I view giving up your personal information as just another factor into that equation. Personally, I'd never provide it. But someone else might. And I'm totally fine with that.

quote: and are never in a position where they feel they have to compromise rights they normally wouldn't

No one's compromising rights. They might be compromising a value. Or a principle.

quote: that these agencies are going to have to grow substantially just to handle them

Death by a thousand papercuts. Just like the argument that a $1M expenditure doesn't matter in the federal budget because it's "too small"... even if they're small, it doesn't take long before they add up.

quote: People often simply are not in a position to refuse a job because they don't like the company's hiring process. Even if said applicant refuses the request and moves on, it's almost certain that someone else will come in and gladly consent in order to land the job because they *NEED* the job.

Ok imagine yourself at a job interview. The interviewer tells you that he is very impressed and that you are very well dressed. In fact so well dressed and attractive that he insists you remove your clothing and perform a Lewinsky on him right then and there or you will not get the job. Well since he asked and since you need a job and it is so difficult to find one you have no choice. And you obviously won't report this because then you would be out of the job that you so desperately need. Sure you could report him but then you would likely be out of a job regardless of whislteblower laws because you only got the job because of your looks and 'skills' and don't know anything about the goings on in sector 7G.

Oh wait no you wouldn't do that! You would leave it to the next person to take that job...a prostitute.